Same thing applies.
I'm thinking for example of the no feedback single ended tubes used by some. Those added harmonics really do give you more feeling of loudness, fine detail and dynamics.
A bit of microphonics helps "space" and "air."
My own electronic designs are intended to not audibly alter the signal. I was most amused when a couple of fellows in Ireland complained that my tube power amp sounded just like "a high feedback solid state amp." Yes, that's likely true, it's not an effects box.
My own electronic designs are intended to not audibly alter the signal. I was most amused when a couple of fellows in Ireland complained that my tube power amp sounded just like "a high feedback solid state amp." Yes, that's likely true, it's not an effects box.
That's why you also need level matching, a good understanding of statistics and the proper listening tests for what you want to measure.
ABX can only test for audible differences, nothing more. That's why its relatively simple to do. But do we want to measure more, the complexity of the tests grow exponentially.
I disagree. The recording engineer can do what he likes to "enhance" the sound; he has, or should have, full creative control to temper the sound as he wishes - but on the replay side the onus is on the system to replicate what has been put down in the recording absolutely precisely - as a first level of competence! If, for whatever reason, the listener wishes to "remaster" in some area then that can be an optional extra, an extension of the normal capabilities, which the user must have full awareness of being in operation - he should know he's "tampering" with the sound.
I'm talking about the actual tools used for the testing, and the procedures that are followed. As examples, the foobar ABX software tool is not sufficiently well done as to be transparent, at least on some machines; and my perception of how most hardware tests are done - and perhaps this is faulty - is that they are not strictly enough managed, and insufficiently flexible from the point of view of the listeners, to be trustworthy.
Hi,
Just curious, how would you describe the sound of the amp?
Funny thing is, I've heard a few amps in my life time that sounded quite "tube" like...Honest.
Ciao, 😉
Just curious, how would you describe the sound of the amp?
Funny thing is, I've heard a few amps in my life time that sounded quite "tube" like...Honest.
Ciao, 😉
It doesn't have a "sound" per se- the distortion is reasonably low, ditto the source impedance, ditto the noise, ditto the microphonics. In brief listening tests, the input and output (with a dummy load) sounded the same. If I wanted an effects box, I'd do it digitally or at line level.
In my write-up, I noted that in uncontrolled evaluation, I got the impression of more power than its puny 20-25 watts, but if that's actually the case, it's due to some care taken to prevent blocking, the bugbear of most tube power amps.
In my write-up, I noted that in uncontrolled evaluation, I got the impression of more power than its puny 20-25 watts, but if that's actually the case, it's due to some care taken to prevent blocking, the bugbear of most tube power amps.
Hi,
Guess these paddies listened to it in the pub over a couple of Guiness then....😀
Agreed.
Thx, 😉
Guess these paddies listened to it in the pub over a couple of Guiness then....😀
Agreed.
Thx, 😉
The single point of citicism the designer of my $/€20k+ serial production preamp had was the inadequate all-aluminum case. (despite its 11/4'' thick front panel) His regular job is in HDTV broadcasting, audio merely a sideshow.
The latest (and more affordable) designs of the brand have less front plate, but much thicker and seamless cases.
I agree.
That's why I want equipment that doesn't add audible artefacts. And I use level matched ears only testing to decide if the equipment fulfils this requirement.
But some people have other opinions, witch is fine. Or worse use the loose terms like "better", witch leads to running around in circles.
Just because in some cases the tools used are not up to par, doesn't mean the method is flawed.
I haven't seen the case so I don't really know, but it seems to be as a case of putting the looks before the function.
That said, I must admit I spent a lot ot time making a steel case with soft rounded angles rather that hard edges, with which it was well neight impossibe to cut yourself no matter how you took picked it up. Not a single screw or nut visible anywhere except at the back, and these were recessed. I'll be using that case design again, so you'll see it. What the Germans used to call "a soft look".
My consession to the mod squad was the front plate, which had a steel sheet which carried everything, and 2 cm thick brushed and anodized face plate for decoration only. That impresed the hell out of a lot of people, I think some of them must have had a hard on. 😀
Last edited:
Here's a question: if you had to decide, in a nominally 100/200W into 8/4 Ohms amp, with s resonable impulse output into 2 Ohms as well (say, 400W/2 Ohms, t=50 mS), which transistors to use at the ouput, and how many pairs, which would you use?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.